Tough Connecticut law targets dangerous gunowners

HARTFORD, Conn. - Before Columbine High School, before the Atlanta day trader offices, before the Jewish community center in Los Angeles, there was Matthew Beck.

In March 1998, the 35-year-old accountant went on a suicidal shooting spree in his offices at the Connecticut Lottery headquarters. Four people died before Beck put the gun to his own head.

Lawmakers reacted with one of the tougher gun-seizure laws on the books.

Starting next month, Connecticut police will be allowed to confiscate guns from anybody determined to be an immediate danger to themselves or others. The law is rooted in the notion that rampages such as Beck's are preceded by a detectable descent into madness.

Critics said the law tramples the Second Amendment and fear it could lead to unwarranted searches and seizures.

Supporters said the standards for seizing guns are so high that the law will seldom be used.

From both sides, Connecticut's law - apparently the first of its kind - is attracting attention.

Legally seizing a gun will require more than suspicion, state police Lt. Robert Kiehm said.

Evidence must exist that the person recently tortured animals, threatened to kill himself or others, or acted violently. A police investigation must conclude no other way exists to keep the person from doing harm, and a warrant must be issued by a judge.

The law requires a hearing within 14 days to determine whether the gun should be returned.

"You need probable cause just to begin an investigation," Kiehm said. "But it gives police officers the power to take some proactive steps instead of waiting for something to happen."

Beck threatened to kill his bosses at the lottery days before the rampage. His co-workers were so nervous that one started bringing a gun to work for protection, said Rep. Michael Lawlor, the law's sponsor.

Under the new law, if those co-workers had "called the cops and said Beck was talking about guns and making threats, something could have been done before the shooting happened," Lawlor said.

Gun-rights advocates argue that allowing police to take weapons from people who haven't done anything wrong violates their Constitutional right to bear arms

"You don't forfeit your rights just because you might do something bad," said Dennis Fusaro, director of state legislation for Gun Owners of America.

The National Rifle Association declined to comment.

The law could lead to illegal searches, Rep. Richard Tulisano said.

"Now police can say, 'We saw you kick a dog peeing on your petunias, so now we could go in your house and look for guns because you might be dangerous,"' Tulisano said. "What happens if they're looking for guns, and they find drugs? This law becomes the basis for which people could invade your home."

Lawmakers in other states said the focus on prevention is the law's strength. Illinois Rep. Tom Darta, a Chicago Democrat, said he plans to introduce a similar Illinois proposal in November.

"The thing that frustrates me is that when they're pulling bodies out of a house, neighbors are telling the police, 'Yeah, the guy who shot them was nuts - we all knew that,"' Darta said.

Steven Duke, a Yale University law professor, said he doubts the law would have stopped Mark O. Barton from killing nine people in July at two Atlanta brokerage firms.

"What guy who wants to shoot somebody is really going to be deterred because his pet weapon has been confiscated?" Duke said.

But Lawlor said the new law could stop people such as Benjamin Smith, the white supremacist who killed two people and wounded nine during a two-state shooting spree targeting Jews, blacks and Asians.

Smith's criminal record and reputation for passing out hate literature could have prompted police to take action, Lawlor said.

"The value of this law is not so much that police will seize your guns," Lawlor said. "It gives police a system to investigate a person who poses a threat. If the police never confiscate a person's guns, they can at least look into the person's behavior and perhaps prevent a tragedy by intervening."